Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the shortsighted dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Company Stock Prices Fall When Women Are Added To Boards Of Directors

Turns out that many companies who seek to embrace equality by any means could actually be doing their shareholders a disservice. But hey, we thought equality of outcome was a guaranteed fast track to utopia! What happened?

In fact, many companies experience stock price declines when women are added to the board of directors, Bloomberg points out.

An analysis of 14 years of market returns across almost 1,900 companies recently revealed that when companies appoint female directors, they experienced two years of stock declines. Companies saw their stock fall by an average of 2.3% just from adding one additional woman to their board.

Kaisa Snellman, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD business school and a co-author of the study said: "Shareholders penalize these companies, despite the fact that increased gender diversity doesn't have a material effect on a company's return on assets. Nothing happens to the actual value of the companies. It's just the perceptions that change."

The study suggests that investor biases are to blame. The study asked senior managers with MBAs to read fictional press releases announcing new board members. The statements were identical, but for the gender of the incoming director.Participants said that men were more likely to care about profits and less about social values, while women were deemed to be "softer".

Snellman continued: "If anyone is biased, it is the market. Investors should consider organizations that add women and other under-represented groups to their boards because there's a good chance that company is being undervalued."

Despite this study's findings, other non-academic reports over the years have suggested that diverse leadership results in corporate success. A McKinsey analysis concluded that board diversity correlates with positive financial performance and a 2019 Credit Suisse report noted a "performance premium for board diversity".

These findings have prompted investors like BlackRock to push for diversity on boards. Women now account for more than 25% of board members on the S&P 500 and 20% of boards globally.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by qzm on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:51PM (9 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Thursday November 28 2019, @08:51PM (#925759)

    The reason for the 'gender pay gap' is careful manipulation of statistics.

    As soon as you normalize for obvious factors, you find that in the large majority of carriers women get paid on average more.
    You must adjust for such things as experience and qualification in the job, hours worked, time spent in that role - all the NORMAL things you would expect to affect the income.

    Of course that doesn't fit the required outcome, so they adjust for none of that, and since women on average work for less time in a given role (both in yearly hours, and in number of years), they tend to be paid less in total.

    And there are two major factors that cause this.
    One is that women tend to have children and by choice or pressure end up being primary care givers.
    the other is that women HAVE MORE CHOICE. Men are looked down on if they are not working a lot and trying to grow a career. Women? not so much.

    Its not hard of course to find anecdotal, or even industry areas where women are both under represented, and probably poorly treated.
    Its also not hard to find such areas for men...

    As to socialism and communism, those are simply a massive power grab by a small set of sociopaths who wish to impose their will on others.
    This is clearly demonstrated by example.
    Communisms primary social effect has been shown to be massive (usually intentional) deaths, and a terrible quality of life for 99% of the population.

    As to communism and equality, only someone with zero experience of communist societies and history would do anything by laugh sadly at such a thought.

    Oh, and lastly, you obviously have no idea of what money actually is. By definition money is used to 'value' (many) things, BECAUSE THATS ITS DAMN PURPOSE. It is a token of value, thats why it was created, thats why it is needed. Nothing about money forces any view of human lives value, or enabled your mystical bogeymen to do bad things. Lavrenity Beria didnt need money, nor did Pol Pot, money wasnt require for the Chinese 'Cultrual Revolution' purges. Stalin didnt need money to starve millions in the Holodomor.

    I would suggest that you are the one who needs to grow the f*ck up, seriously.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Touché=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:11PM (7 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:11PM (#925767) Journal

    One is that women tend to have children and by choice or pressure end up being primary care givers.

    Then how do you explain the pay gap for women who never have children? Same number of years of experience. Same career objectives as men, so your theory is just more patriarchal bs.

    But that's okay. Men are becoming superfluous to the economy. For years, 3 women have graduated for every 2 men. Traditional male jobs are the ones in danger of disappearing (those 8 million driving jobs will be mostly gone in 15 years). Birthrate is declining, which means less need for new housing, so fewer construction jobs. The average half-life of a software developer continues to trend down, so you'd better have a second career lined up that will see you through your 40s and beyond, because there are not enough management jobs for old coders.

    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:49PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:49PM (#925788)

      Then how do you explain the pay gap for women who never have children? Same number of years of experience. Same career objectives as men, so your theory is just more patriarchal bs.

      Women, even childless ones, on average work fewer hours than men in similar situations.
      You're going to need to provide some references if you want to make headway, because every explanation of the cause of the "gender pay gap" has pinned the turning point as "motherhood", and that, pre-motherhood, women are paid 1-2% more than men at the same level and for the same amount of work.

      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @12:25AM (4 children)

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday November 29 2019, @12:25AM (#925817) Journal
        Ah, the patriarchy strikes again. You make claims without providing cites, and yet I have to. Ain't goon happen.

        "every explanation" is just that - an explanation without providing any hard data, because "everyone knows."

        Also, hours worked has nothing to do with productivity. Why not re-read the latest study that shows a 4-day work week with 5 days pay makes people more productive. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-tried-4-day-work-week-productivity-soared/. [cbsnews.com]

        The problem women encounter is the "second shift", where even if the guy is unemployed, she's still expected to do the housework. It's called the "second shift", and that 2 hours of extra work every day adds up.

        Women are fed up, and realizing that the cultural expectations of needing a man in our lives is bullshit [theguardian.com]

        Data confirms more women have realized there are far worse things than dying alone, which is bad news for the patriarchy.

        ot long ago I had a discussion with a friend about why she married, and ultimately divorced, someone she knew wasn’t right for her. She said she bought into society’s deafening message that being with a man – any man – is better than being alone, and certainly better than dying alone, which is allegedly the worst fate anyone, especially any woman, can suffer.

        When I told her that I’ve never feared dying alone, and in fact have sometimes feared the opposite, she told me I was incredibly lucky. Because this meant I wouldn’t end up settling for a life that doesn’t actually make me happy, even if society tells me it’s supposed to.

        Apparently I’m not alone. (Pun intended!) Data confirms that more women have begun to realize that there are far worse things than dying alone, which is great news for women but bad news for the patriarchy.

        “Broke men are hurting women’s marriage prospects,” the NY Post recently declared, citing a study from the Journal of Family and Marriage. The article claimed that “most American women hope to marry” but there is a shortage of men with stable incomes and lives, making it tough for women to do so.

        CNN reports that there “are more single working women than ever,” and by 2030, according to the CDC, “45% of working women ages 25 to 44 in the United States will be single”. This inspired this spirited Twitter exchange:

        1- it's a million times better to be single than have a husband who is trash
        2- imagine being a man who thinks that women die of sadness without them lmfao
        3- being a single woman between 25-44 in the United States is-- & I'm speaking from experience-- fun as hell

        Contrary to decades of prevailing wisdom that those who marry are better off, a 2017 study published in the Journal of Women’s Health found that women who stay single or who divorce are actually healthier than those who stay married. By contrast, married men are healthier than men who are not.

        It's almost like men are emotional parasites who suck the health out of women for their own benefit - and there's some truth to that. Men still assume that they can retire from work, but women cannot retire from housework. This is part of the "second shift" problem, and one reason women are staying single.

        It helps explain the continually falling birthrate in a previous story.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:40AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:40AM (#925843)

          “Broke men are hurting women’s marriage prospects,”

          ...

          "1- it's a million times better to be single than have a husband who is trash"

          Because if a male isn't rich then he's trash?

          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @07:50PM (2 children)

            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday November 29 2019, @07:50PM (#926119) Journal

            People (of any combination of sexes) can live together without the legal complications marriage brings. But now that women are often earning more than men, they're just employing the same calculus men have been using for generations. "Why buy the bull when you can get the sex for free?"

            There's a difference between earning their keep and being rich. But there's not much attractive today in families where you need two incomes to survive, in a broke guy whose best hope is to drive an Uber until that job disappears from automation.

            Same as guys wanting women 20 years younger than them. Women can do the math - the guy will be needing to have his diapers changed while she's still got plenty of years ahead of her. It's a bad deal all around for the woman.

            A guy is 30 - his ideal woman is 20. A guy is 50 - his ideal woman is 20. A guy is 70 - he still wants a "babe". There's something wrong here, and it's not the women.

            --
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:44AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:44AM (#926285)

              There's nothing wrong here. You're projecting your ideal world onto the real one. That never works. Of course males are after the most capable females (best breeding) and females are after the most capable males (highly paid thus more secure in theory). Your double standard of it's okay for women to have their preferences but men's preferences are wrong is bullshit.

              And where did you ladies ever get the idea that you won't be dying alone? Men don't live as long as women.

              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 30 2019, @07:36PM

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday November 30 2019, @07:36PM (#926512) Journal

                Gross misinterpretation of what I wrote. Men are free to have their preferences, and now women are smartening up and setting criteria that suit us more. No more need to "date downward" to get a guy because more and more, marriage is obsolete. Dead. Not even pining for the fjords.

                Each individual is free to act in their own best self-interest. If you have a problem with that, and that it doesn't meet the male goal of having a woman much younger than him, tough shit. Either start accepting that you'll have to consider older women as well, or stay single. Your call.

                Never said women wouldn't be dying alone. Just that there's absolutely no point in observing the "man must be older than woman" convention. It harms women by leaving them alone for decades. Screw that.

                Mathematically, for there to be an even chance of either party predeceasing the other, women should be 4 years older than men (YMMV depending on country). Are you going to say that's not fair?

                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:00AM (#925940)

        "Women, even childless ones, on average work fewer hours than men in similar situations."

        [citation needed]

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:17PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:17PM (#925795) Journal

    By definition money is used to 'value' (many) things

    And it's wrong, because it's reductionist. You'll need more kind of money that are not interchangeable to quantify sustainability on long term - e.g. the market value of the minerals extracted in an area does not quantify the loss of soil/water/ecology on the mine site.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford